turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:United States Presidential Election, 1864 (The Guns of the South)
I had forgotten Fremont ran with Andrew Johnson. That's a little ridiculous, isn't it? A pro-slavery Democrat getting the nomination of splinter Republicans who were too radical to back Lincoln? Turtle Fan 18:50, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :The Radicals still wanted to appeal to the broadest number of voters available, and with Johnson, they could say they were about more than just slavery and punishing the CS (not that either issue really mattered anymore). ::With what other radical issues was Johnson in line? Turtle Fan 19:09, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :From the purely literary stand-point, it was a quick and easy way to demonstrate just how confused the situation was in the US, which went from winning to losing in literally a matter of weeks, if not days. TR 19:05, January 28, 2010 (UTC) ::That makes more sense. Turtle Fan 19:09, January 28, 2010 (UTC) I'm starting to wonder if the table in the back of GotS contained a typo. Maybe they switched Johnson and Everett. Assume Everett is Edwin C. He was a Republican, and a very liberal one. In OTL he was very loyal to Lincoln, but in GotS Lincoln's stock had gone way down, and it's conceivable Everett would hear and heed the siren call of the radical fringe. Meanwhile Johnson was a Unionist Southern Democrat, roughly a right-leaning moderate who wanted the North to win but wasn't too sold on its political goals for the postwar reconstruction. This aligns him fairly comfortably with McClellan's politics. It makes much, much more sense that way. :The novel itself also describes Johnson as running with Fremont. So no trasposition there. TR 19:45, June 11, 2010 (UTC) As for Seymour-Vallandigham, I really just don't get it. Seymour was very critical of the way Lincoln and the GOP (not very old in those days, was it?) ran the war, but he was definitely a rock-solid War Democrat. Vallandigham was a copperhead and if the CS had won he would most likely have defected. In fact, he could have been a mirror image of Andrew Johnson, whom one assumes would have had to live the rest of his life in exile in what remained of the Union. Turtle Fan 19:17, June 11, 2010 (UTC) :Well, since he was deported and made his way back in OTL, I think it's safe to argue that Vallandigham did feel loyalty to either the U.S. or Ohio, both, and wouldn't have defected just because he was a copperhead. He could have, sure. But you can plausibly argue that he wouldn't have. ::Geez. The one time I try to retcon something strange HT did, and he won't let me. Turtle Fan 21:24, June 11, 2010 (UTC) :As for why Seymour and Vallandigham: well again, see above. The Democratic Party has frequently had to herd cats in its history, still does. It certainly had all manner of cats calling in its membership in 1864, And, I should also point out, while Seymour was a War Democrat, by that point, vigorous prosecution of the war was a moot point, so Seymour would have almost certainly have downplayed his previous stance and focused instead on "Lincoln lost the war for us", which is a position the Copperheads and the War Dems could have gotten behind without harping too much on whether the South was right. TR 19:45, June 11, 2010 (UTC) ::Well, maybe. It does bear remembering that presidential nominees didn't just pick their running mates back then. They had some influence, but it was up to the convention delegates. (And yes, I know it's still up to the delegates, but they just do as they're told. I can't remember a serious attempt to deny a nominee his preferred running mate in years and years, much less an attempt to saddle a nominee with a running mate he doesn't want.) Nominees had some influnce, but the harder the battle for the nomination, the more unlikely the losing candidates' men were to give the guy who beat them what he wanted, and the more of them there were to make their stubbornness felt. Many a nineteenth-century candidate got stuck with a running mate he hated. The dysfunctional relationship between Taylor and Fillmore, for instance, made the Adams-Jefferson dynamic look cooperative. Turtle Fan 21:24, June 11, 2010 (UTC) The States That Lincoln and Seymour Carried Could the article be edited to tell what states were carried by either Abraham Lincoln or Horatio Seymour in the electoral college? Some states are listed, but not all of them. I've gathered up all the info I could get from the state articles on this wiki. The states that Abraham Lincoln was able to carry were all six of the New England states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut) (39), Michigan (8), West Virginia (5), Illinois (16), Minnesota (4), Iowa (8), and Nevada (3). Lincoln came in second and carried 12 states with 83 electoral votes. The states that voted for Horatio Seymour in the electoral votes from New York (33), Pennsylvania (26), Ohio (21), Indiana (13), Kentucky (11), Missouri (11), Wisconsin (8), Maryland (7), Oregon (3), and California (5). He won the election and carried ten states with 138 electoral votes. The only other candidates that were known to win states that was already listed on the article were John C. Frémont, who only won three electoral votes from Kansas and George McClellan, who only won 10 electoral votes from Delaware (3) and New Jersey (7). -- 19:25, July 10, 2016 (UTC)Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian :There are two tables at the end of GotS, one of which lists the state by state election results of 1864 (both actual votes and electoral college) by all four tickets. I believe that table should be reproduced at the end of this article rather than scattering the information among two dozen state articles. ML4E (talk) 19:37, July 10, 2016 (UTC) ::I see no value in it. We can't do that with any other election. The important thing is that Seymour, Lincoln didn't, and two other guys did even worse. ::EDIT: And in the time it took me to put this up, ML4E shared a counter-proposal. TR (talk) 19:44, July 10, 2016 (UTC) :::I see no pressing need to include the information, but since it's out there and so many people seem to want it, I think slapping the table onto this article is the way to go. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:40, July 10, 2016 (UTC) It's done. Anyone requesting such picayune bullshit again will be banned for a week. TR (talk) 03:27, July 12, 2016 (UTC) :Thanks for answering my request guys. Sorry it was such a hassle. -- 15:45, July 12, 2016 (UTC)Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian :But, but, there is a table for Confederate States Presidential Election, 1867 (The Guns of the South) in the back of GotS that can be ... < urp > < glug > BANHAMMER! ML4E (talk) 18:50, July 12, 2016 (UTC) ::Admins will not be subject to the ban. :::In that case, how about the partisan make-up of the CS House of Representatives following the 1919 election in TL-191? Turtle Fan (talk) 00:26, July 13, 2016 (UTC) ::The will be hanged. TR (talk) 22:42, July 12, 2016 (UTC) :::Uh, never mind. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:26, July 13, 2016 (UTC) Fremont on the Election Table I like how the election table came out guys! However, I do think that Fremont should have a different shade of red or pink to avoid confusion for Lincoln. After all, the election table shows them as the same color to represent that they are part of the same fraction of the Republican Party, even though they are part of different sets of the party. Lincoln was on the regular fraction of the party while Fremont was part of the Radical Republicans. -- 12:50, August 24, 2016 (UTC)Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian :I'll take it under advisement. TR (talk) 14:29, August 24, 2016 (UTC) Results Table As of the edit(s) on Feb. 18, 2018 the results table seems to be messed up. I'm not sure if you noticed TR and went away to think about it or not, but I wanted to bring it to your attention just in case. If I knew the coding better, I would take a shot at fixing it but I have decided to leave it well enough alone. ML4E (talk) 21:21, February 18, 2018 (UTC) :The results table got screwed up and had to be removed entirely!? Well that sucks! It was working fine just a few days ago. Oh well, I might as well do the next best thing and add the states the Lincoln and Seymour won to the article to clarify their winnings. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 14:30, July 1, 2018 (UTC) Math on the Results Table Some of the percentages of votes that some of the candidate received seems very wrong. The popular votes checks out but the percentages seem like some totals go above 100%. For example, for Minnesota, I calculated all four of the candidates percentages and I got 130.9%! That is just impossible! I suggest we should take a look at the election box template and fix the percentages. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 14:05, April 3, 2018 (UTC) :That could be. I know that table was drudgework, so I may have transposed a few numbers. TR (talk) 15:01, April 3, 2018 (UTC) Found Election Map I have both some good and bad news for everyone! The good news is that I found a map of the 1864 US Presidential Election in The Guns of the South. The bad news is that it's on Deviantart and made by a user named IronPiedmont1996 and the map comes with a Wikipedia-like infobox. We could ask him if we could use the map for this article. If that fails, I guess one of us will have to go to Wikimedia and create a map of the election ourselves. The link with the image from Deviantart is linked below this comment. https://www.deviantart.com/ironpiedmont1996/art/Guns-of-the-South-U-S-Election-714461828 --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 19:40, June 27, 2018 (UTC) :If he says yes, we can add it. I'm certainly not going to create one. TR (talk) 19:42, June 27, 2018 (UTC) :Nor I. I really don't see why we'd want to go down that road to nowhere. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:32, June 27, 2018 (UTC) ::You know guys, I could create the map on Wikimedia if IronPiedmont1996 says no to using his map. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 12:15, June 28, 2018 (UTC) Map Created Good news everybody! I got in contact with a Wikimedia used named JerrySa1 and he was able to create maps of both this election and the 1867 Confederate one. The map of the 1864 US election can be found on Wikimedia and I'll link it below this comment for anyone to upload to the wiki. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alt-1864_Union_Election.png --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 16:00, August 5, 2019 (UTC) ::I'm surprised that no one has noticed this comment about the created map even though I made this comment over 3½ months ago. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 19:15, November 20, 2019 (UTC) There's Something Wrong With the Infobox There appears to be a duplicate photo of John C. Fremont on the infobox that is strangely there. I doesn't show up when editing, so there must be something wrong with either the infobox or the photo itself. Does anyone know how to get rid of it? --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 22:45, December 27, 2019 (UTC) :How's that? ML4E (talk) 20:06, December 30, 2019 (UTC) ::(Looks at the article) Much better! Thanks ML4E. (Looks at the revisions) Ah crap! it looks like I'm responsible for the screamed up infobox after all! I'm not sure how correctly putting the right number on the images section created a duplicate photo of Fremont, but it somehow managed that. Sorry for the inconvenience. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 20:30, December 30, 2019 (UTC) :No worries. I took a look at the template itself and the documentation recommended this format if there were four candidate. I still don't know why it did the weird duplication but this clears it up so all is well. ML4E (talk) 20:42, December 30, 2019 (UTC) ::Good to hear. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:45, December 31, 2019 (UTC)